Creation: Abiogenesis Part IV

Posted by Gregg on Mar 28, 2010 in Blog Stuff |


A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

A Darwinian Primer

The 6 types of evolution taught in the average public school, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution, and the last being simple modifications or changes within kind and not even really “evolution” are:

  1. Cosmic evolution
  2. Stellar evolution
  3. Chemical evolution
  4. Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
  5. Macro-evolution
  • Micro-evolution (Changes within kind – not evolution)

Battle of beliefs, War of Worldviews, and “gods” of Gaps

A “god” of the gap fallacy is a special kind of argument from ignorance that takes place when one has absolutely no explanation for — or is utterly  ignorant of — how something might come to be the way it is and so fills in the “gap” in his knowledge with whatever “god” he thinks magically made things the way they are. Darwinists fervently and often accuse believers in the scientifically supported Biblical account of creation of being guilty of committing a “god of the gaps” fallacy when we point to evidence of design in, well, every very obviously designed living thing.

I fear this kind of religious infighting can only lead to further conflict between those who espouse the Darwinist dogma and those who understand Biblically revealed knowledge and truth.  The fact is that Darwinists are far more guilty of this fallacy than those who are open minded enough to ponder the supernatural in addition to the natural world.

Speaking specifically of the abiogenesis debate, Darwinists face thousands of problems concerning how that first magical spontaneous generation of life from non-life might have taken place. In order for the ridiculous Darwinian myths to hold water, a fully formed and fully functional living organism — our alleged original ancestor and the original seed from which then sprouted the entire (big, booming announcer voice, please!) “TREE OF LIFE” — would have had to have sprung into existence from non-living things like rocks and dirt and seawater, much like the mythical Athena sprung full grown and fully formed from a clam.

Except in the Darwinist myth, there was no clam, because there were no other living things on earth except great grandpa Rocks-n-dirt himself. In the mythical, magical primordial environment, there was only rock, dirt, sunshine, and sea water which naturally decided it would create life.  Great grandpa Rocks-n-dirt allegedly thrived in this environment and gave birth to every living thing in the known universe from bacteria to birds, from plants to symbiotic life forms, from cougars to cattle.

Lately, the logical and scientific problems Darwinists face with this contention are so severe and so damning that Darwinists have resorted to the Alien Fallacy, which is their very own special “god” of the gap fallacy and an enormous argument from ignorance. That is to say, they have developed something they grandly label a “theory” which they authoritatively call (big, booming announcer voice, again!) panspermia, the scientific sounding word that basically means “Aliens from outer space did it!”

I have trouble agreeing that this fallacy merits being titled something so grand as a “theory” so let’s look at it based on merit.  First of all, it instantly begs the question, of course, and the regress of causality logically leads skeptics such as myself to ask, “Well, then, how did the aliens who seeded life on earth come to be on their own planet?” for which there is also no answer. Unless, maybe, some other alien beings panspermia-ed them, too, and so on ad infinitum.  Only there is no infinitum in the equation since the universe is finite.  Eventually, you are just plain out of time for aliens to have infinitely created other aliens.  Also, logically, since an infinite regress of causality is impossible, we must at some point encounter what Aristotle and Socrates called the uncaused cause or the prime mover which leads full circle back to the present debate right here on planet earth.  What — or more accurately “WHO” — is the first cause.

As an answer to the creation question, panspermia ranks right up there with any other pagan religious creation myth. Why not replace “alien” gods of gaps with ghosts?  Ghosts did it.  Or Zues?  Or Odin?  Or Chtullu?  The framework for the religious debate depends only upon the foundation of one’s religious beliefs. The dogma of methodological naturalism as practiced under the religion of secular humanism allows for a belief in aliens from outer space provided that they, in turn, were not also created by a divine supreme being.  Methodological naturalism does not allow for the supernatural but it is still very much a religious belief.

While not being very scientific, panspermia is a great example of a “god of the gaps” fallacy and a great example of the religious foolishness Darwinists preach and teach in the name of the secular humanist religion.  Perhaps textbooks should come with the following warning, “Abandon all logic ye who enter into Darwinism.”

Coming up for Air

If we can take a breath for a moment, I would like to discuss oxygen. Oxygen, in the form of H2O is an atom in every single molecule of water. Water is an absolutely essential compound for all known forms of life in the universe which is why NASA spends trillions of tax dollars looking for water on every rock in space. Additionally, ionized oxygen in the atmosphere forms our planet’s ozone layer.  The ozone layer blocks many harmful types of radiation from reaching the surface of our planet, such as cosmic rays.  Without an ozone layer, snake oil vendors like Al Gore (speaking of hot air) would not be able to sell anyone “carbon credits” and planet Earth would closely resemble Venus by now due to some very real “global warming” performed by a cosmic bombardment of gamma and theta radiation.

Here’s a fairly insurmountable problem Darwinists face. The presence of oxygen in any amount causes organic compounds to decompose. The famous Urey-Miller experiment leveraged a gas-phase process which ultimately produced both left and right dead amino acids and poisonous toxins like tar and formaldehyde which were euphemistically labeled “organic compounds.”

Just to give you some context, EVERY SINGLE such experiment has only ever produced either compounds that are toxic or outright deadly to life — such as formaldehyde — or a bucket of dead amino acids. No laboratory experiment has ever produced living tissues from non-living raw materials.

Living things only have certain proportions of any of the elements within their bodies, and these elements chemically combine — a process called reduction — they have been reduced into special chemical compounds. When the chemical compounds found in living beings are exposed to oxygen, they decompose or, as chemists would say, they oxidize. Simply put, these chemicals leave the reduced, chemically combined state, and break down to individual chemicals again in the presence of oxygen.

Stanley Miller knew this fact.

“The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere].”
Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

Miller knew that he could never form anything resembling organic compounds in the presence of oxygen which is why he replaced an atmosphere containing oxygen in the simulated environment of his experiment with methane.

This leads to an unsolvable chicken and egg problem for Darwinists. Since oxygen is required for the chemicals to catalyze, and the near complete absence of oxygen is required for reducing conditions, there is no logical way organic compounds could have formed. If you ignore one variable, the other side of the equation destroys the premise.

“With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; [but] without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Water, Water Everywhere and Not a Drop to Condense

As I said in part III of this series, in addition to synthesis problems, there are also condensation problems. Fats, sugars, and nucleic acids can only possibly come from proteins and only then by very careful and highly specific removal of fluid, amid other equally complicated activities conducted by laboratory technicians in ridiculously expensive experiments. Without water loss, proteins cannot form in water.  Okay, hold that thought and read on.

The Precipitates Problem

The chemical compounds within living creatures were meant to be inside them, not outside. Outside, those compounds are quickly anihilated, if they do not first quickly destroy one another.

Even if they could survive the other problems, many organic products formed in the ocean would be removed and rendered inactive as precipitates. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; while amino acids like arginine, or other organic compounds like chlorophyl or porphyrins, would be absorbed by clays. Many of the chemicals would react with other chemicals to form non-biologically useful products. Sugars and amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought together.

Even if the very moment amino acids form, water loss could somehow “naturally occur” (it can’t), enzyme inhibitors would then neutralize the results. The problem for Darwinists here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized “primitive water” would be needed to produce the materials of life, but those same chemicals would first inhibit then quickly destroy any chemical compounds and enzymes thus created.

Where’s the Primordial Water?

Most of the chemicals needed by life could not arise in a watery environment, such as seawater. In fact, experiments such as Urey-Miller (this is a key point to understand) in addition to not even using actual AIR like that which we find in the earth’s actual atmosphere, used fluids other than water to attain success. They do not use seawater — or even regular water — when they prepare those brown vats full of tar, toxins, poisons, and dead amino acids they all point to as evidence for spontaneous generation.

“Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case, inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Now, Concentrate

We never find the sheer concentrations of chemicals in seawater that amino acid synthesis would need. All the elements are there, but not in the proper concentrations. Not even close.

Most of what is in seawater is just, well, water. Looking for chemicals suspended in seawater in close proximity to each other, or in commingled densities, is like looking for a clock in a casino. You just aren’t going to find it.

That’s Rich

An extremely rich mixture of chemicals would be required for the alleged formation of the first living molecule. Assuming their spontaneous generation theories are correct, then there ought to be places in the world where such rich mixtures are still found today, or evidence that they once existed, but they simply do not exist.

“If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes … In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment.”
J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems.

Supply Problems

In any conceivable primitive environment, there simply would not be enough other chemicals available to accomplish the tasks needed for the naturalistic magic to happen.

For example, most biochemicals contain the element nitrogen. Renowned biochemist Gish discovered that there never has been enough concentration of nitrogen, in air and water, for amino acids to form naturally by themselves. Simply put, nitrogen does not occur naturally in sufficient supply in rich enough concentrations.

Similar studies have been made on the availability of phosphorus by a biochemist named Bernal. There would not have been enough phosphorus available in sufficient supply for the many needed chemical combinations. Phosphorus is needed for DNA and other high-energy compounds. But phosphorus concentrations are too low outside of living things.

Even once anointed high priest of secular humanism, the late Dr. Carl Sagan, famous Darwinist and atheist, found that adenosine triphosphate (high-energy phosphate or ATP) could not possibly form under the prebiological conditions.

The Truth

CreationThe truth is that no one living or dead has ever come up with a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be, how the galaxies and stars and planets follow their orderly paths, how life on our planet even exists — without having been created. There is no sound theory in existence that leaves out the Architect.

The further truth is that the entire creation debate has nothing to do with science since science, by its very nature, is logical.  Darwinists abandon logic in nearly every single one of their interpretations of actual scientific evidence.

The truth is that this debate is a religious debate on every front.

The truth is that the scientific evidence supports the Biblical account of creation as described by the Creator Himself.

I encourage you to research it with an open mind while applying methodological critical thought and logic to the debate.  Don’t allow yourself to buy into false restrictions or follow biased parameters.  I have no doubt that you will arrive at the same conclusion.

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.